The Pryorshttps://pryors.wordpress.com
Travel, Family, News and a Public Forum for Self-AggrandizementThu, 05 Aug 2010 16:46:29 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngThe Pryorshttps://pryors.wordpress.com
Twice Baked Englishman – Edward Wightman 1566-1612https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/twice-baked-englishman-edward-wightman-1566-1612/
https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/twice-baked-englishman-edward-wightman-1566-1612/#respondFri, 30 Jul 2010 23:58:35 +0000http://pryors.wordpress.com/?p=82]]>We’ll be heading to England this summer (2010), so I decided it might be fun to trace an ancestor back to the town where he or she originated and pay the town a visit. I broke out the genealogical charts my mother made and began the search. The Pryor line currently peters out in 1818, still in America, so I turned to other family charts. I noticed the Rathbone chart (on my mother’s side) was one of the most complete. One of the family lines ran all the way to the edge of the chart and in the final entry I saw the words I was looking for “John Wightman, .b 1598 Burton-On-Trent, England”. But this particular family line didn’t end at the edge of the chart and there was one additional generation written into the margin. The name was Edward Wightman 1566-1612 and beside his name were the words “Burned at the stake”. I smiled. This was my kind of ancestor. Here’s what I found out about him:

The story begins with James I, king of England, a monarch who considered himself a learned scholar of theology. (He had been dubbed “The wisest fool in Christendom”) He was the eldest son of Mary Queen of Scots, the very same Mary who was beheaded by order of Elizabeth I for “Treason”, which really meant she was a threat to the throne. Mary had strong Catholic support in Scotland, England and abroad, while Elizabeth was backed by protestants. The protestants, won this round, but James was obviously born into a turbulent time, a time when a King had to tread delicately through a minefield of religious beliefs. James’ way of dealing with this danger was to become an expert on the topic of Christianity. He even wrote several books on the subject. He took an intellectual approach to theology and had strong opinions as to what was, and was not, valid Christian doctrine. (Ever hear of the King James Bible? That’s him.) Edward Wightman, my ancestor would one day find himself in conflict with the strongly held beliefs of the King.

Edward Wightman was a devout and passionate man. Obstinate was a word sometimes used to describe him. He was a Baptist minister and a successful businessman. The late 16th century was a highly superstitious time throughout most of the western world and it was generally accepted by scholars and clergy alike that things like witches and demonic possession really, truely existed. These superstitions would have a chilling influence on Edward one day in 1596 when he was summoned to help with a boy who had begun to exhibit symptoms of writhing, convulsions and dialogs with invisible devils. In one of the most unusual, and well documented, demonic possession cases ever recorded in England, 13 year old Thomas Darling was thought to be possessed by not one, but two demons. Considering that Edward and all who witnessed the event believed deeply that this was an actual demonic possession, it must have been a truly frightening experience.

“His countenance was strangely disfigured, his mouth set wide open, & sometime drawne awrie, his face turned backward, and his armes and shoulders thrust out of ioynt”

For days the boy shook and shouted, fell into trances, then leapt up pointing a threatening finger at the men around him. He at one point wept, claiming he was in the presence of a beautiful angel, but later, with his eyes closed, snatched a bible from the hands of one of his attendants and tore it in half. The “demons inside him” at one point threatened to leave the boy’s body and possess someone else in the room. This threat was likely taken very seriously by the uneasy observers. The boy vomited and convulsed violently and was said to have walked on his hands and feet. If any of this is starting to ring familiar; a 13 year old child possessed by demons, faces turning backwards, vomiting, shaking beds and exorcists, it’s compellingly similar to the 1973 movie that scared the living crap out of everyone who saw it. This despite the fact everyone knew that it was nothing more than actors reading a script. I can’t begin to imagine the effect this event had on a group of superstition clergymen in late 16th century England, where Witch burning was still an acceptable, if not encouraged practice.
In the moments the boy was lucid, he prayed desperately for relief:

“I charge thee in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost to get thee from mee, & come no more at me”

But the boy’s prayers went unanswered for many long and grueling hours. The boy eventually recovered, but Edward Wightman was forever changed by the experience. He began to doubt many of the tenants of Christian doctrine and openly dismissed the Holy Trinity as a fabrication. No doubt he was influenced by the unanswered prayers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made by Thomas Darling. Over the next decade he wrote volumes about his new beliefs and preached them publically, often to the chagrin of the other local clergy.

As his beliefs deviated more and more radically from what was religiously acceptable, he eventually came to the attention of Bishop Richard Neile, the Archbishop of York. The Bishop, after hearing of Edwards’s radical opinions, arrested him and brought him to London. It’s been hinted that Edward may have at this point been suffering from delusions and that the cause of his radical change in beliefs was nothing more than a bout with mental illness, but there is little evidence to back this up. While in custody, Edward freely wrote a detailed statement of his beliefs which was to be delivered to King James himself. Edward believed so strongly in his persuasiveness and the validity of his beliefs, he felt confident the king would quickly change his views. He was tragically mistaken. The king was not pleased with Edwards writing, not pleased at all. Edward’s beliefs directly conflicted with those of King James and such a conflict could not be tolerated.

King James personally ordered that Edward be tried for heresy. He was returned to Lichfield, where he remained jailed while preparations were made for his trial. While in custody, he became even more obstinate and began frequent and loud “blaspheming” toward his captors, something that didn’t much help his case.

Edward was tried and convicted of heresy and sentenced to be burned at the stake. The order for Edwards’s execution was written by King James himself and has managed to survive the centuries. Here are some excerpts:

“The King to the sheriff of our city of Litchfield, Greeting…”

“…upon the wicked heresies of Ebion, Cirinthus, Valintian, Arrius, Macedonius, Simon, Magnus, of Manes, Manichees, Photinus, and of the Anabaptists, and other arch-heriticks; and moreover of other cursed opinions, belched by the instance of Satan, excogitated and here to forunheard of; the aforesaid Edward Wightman… the aforesaid wicked crimes, heresies and other detestable blasphemies and errors, stubbornly and perniciously, knowingly and maliciously, and with a hardened heart, published, defended and dispersed, by definite sentence of the divine father, with the consent of divines, learned in the law aforesaid, justly, lawfully and canonically, against the said Edward Wightman… stands adjudged and pronounced a heretick, and therefore as a diseased sheep out of the flock of the Lord, lest our subjects he do infect by his contagion, he hath decreed to be cast out, and cut off…”

“We command thee that thou cause the said Edward Wightman, being in thy custody, to be committed to fire in some publick and open place below the city aforesaid, for the cause aforesaid before people; and the same Edward Wightman in the same fire cause really to be burned in destation of said crime, and for the manifest example of other Christians, that they may not fall into the same crime”

So on March 8, 1612 the public square of the town of Lichfield was prepared for his burning. In point of fact, this was not necessarily a death sentence. Edward was told by Bishop Neile that if he recanted his beliefs and signed the necessary documents, he would not be burned. Edward obstinately refused. The next morning he was dragged to the public square, tied to a stake, surrounded with wood and set ablaze. A crowd of several hundred had gathered to watch. As the flames licked his flesh he began shouting loudly, something not wholly unexpected one would presume, but his shouts were interpreted by some as a recant. The sheriff leapt forward and cut him loose, allowing him to escape from the flames. He had some painful burns, but was alive.

Edward was returned to the jail, where he was presented with documentation to sign recanting his heretical views. Edward carefully read them over, but surprised everyone by refusing to sign them. They gave him a few days to recover and then presented the documents to him again. He again refused to sign, despite the fact they assured him they would complete the burning next time. This went on for three weeks, which would seem to indicated they really didn’t relish the idea of burning a man alive and wanted to provide every opportunity to prevent it.

Finally, on April 11th 1612, he was taken back to the public square:

“[Wightman] was carried again to the stake where feeling the heat of the fire he again would have recanted, but for all his crying the sheriff told him he should cost him no more and commanded faggots to be set to him whence roaring, he was burned to ashes.”

It is said that to his last breath he died blaspheming.

Edward Wightman has the distinction to be the last man in England to die in such a manner for heresy. After his death his son John emigrated from England to Rhode Island where, as luck would have it, Edward Wightman’s genetic material was passed along to his American descendents, including yours truly.

]]>https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/twice-baked-englishman-edward-wightman-1566-1612/feed/0tedp10WightmanMemorialWilliam Alfred Knight 1320-1350https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/william-alfred-knight-1320-1350/
https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/william-alfred-knight-1320-1350/#respondSun, 04 Jul 2010 22:43:53 +0000http://pryors.wordpress.com/?p=68]]>If you trace back the “Knight” line of the Pryor family, starting with my great grandmother, Alice Austin Knight, you will eventually reach William Alfred Knight 1320-1350 my 19th great grandfather. On the genealogy web site Ancestry.com there are an astonishing 72,103 descendents of William Knight who have listed him in their family tree. Interestingly, almost all of them firmly believe that William was the illegitimate love child of Roger De Mortimer (The Earl of March) and Queen Isabella (The Queen of England). This fact may or may not be true, the history is inconclusive, but the story is well worth telling, and it all begins with the somewhat incompetent, not very kingly, Edward II…

While King Edward I “Longshanks” was still alive, legend has it he discovered that his son Edward II and another young man where lovers. Longshanks was a seasoned warrior, a veteran of the crusades, a true mans-man and purportedly, an ill tempered lout, so it’s not surprising he promptly threw Edwards lover out a tower window. (Okay, I’ll admit this is the way his lovers death was depicted in the movie Braveheart, which is known to have played fast and loose with history. Scholars generally agree the young man was actually run-through twice by long-sword and then beheaded. Either way he met a tragic end.) To set his son straight, so to speak, the king arranged a marriage between 24 year old Edward and Isabella Capet, the daughter of the King of France who was just 12 at the time. Edward was kind enough to put off consummating the marriage for a good number of years (too many as far as his father was concerned) but fortunately for the royal line, the two eventually got down to business and produced Edward III, heir to the English throne.

When Edward II finally became king, it did not change his nature and he spent a good deal of time with “Hugh the Younger” of the powerful Despenser family, who was his court favorite. In the middle ages, a “court favorite” was the King’s most trusted advisor to whom he could delegate much of the responsibility and complexity of running his kingdom. In other words, Hugh ran the kingdom so Edward could pursue his other important interests such as drinking, cavorting and lounging about. Whether or not Edward II and Hugh Despenser were lovers is open for debate, but there is little debate that Edward was a weak and ineffectual King and the Despenser family held great sway over him.

In the mean time, Queen Isabella grew to despise Edward. She was lonely, trapped in a loveless marriage and forced to eat English food, day in and day out, which I’m sure you can imagine was like torture to a Frenchwoman. Who could blame her for wanting to return to France? After many years of unhappiness, fortune smiled upon her when war broke out between her homeland and her adopted kingdom. Edward asked her to return to France and negotiate peace with her brother Charles IV, who was now King. Not needing to be asked twice, she took her children and immediately returned home where she would remain for the next four years. This is where Roger De Mortimer, the man who may be my 20th great grandfather, enters the picture.

The De Mortimer family had been granted vast land holdings by William the Conqueror for their role in the Norman invasion of England in 1066. Two hundred years later they were a well respected, aristocratic English family. Roger was one of the “March Lords” or “Marcher Lords” which means his land holdings were along one of England’s borders, so it was his responsibility to protect the region from attack. The De Mortimer family’s land was located along the border of Wales in central England. The Marcher Lords, unlike other Lords, had complete jurisdiction over their lands and subjects, without recourse to the king, so in a sense, they ruled their own small kingdoms, which included maintaining their own armies.

Trouble began between the foppish Edward II and the Marcher Lords soon after Hugh “the Younger” Despenser became Edwards’s favorite. Hugh took advantage of his status with the king by claiming the land-holdings of his wife’s family, essentially stealing the land and titles from his two brothers-in-law. These lands, incidentally, were also on the border with Wales, so Roger De Mortimer and the other Marcher Lords were not at all pleased when they heard about it. They realized that their lands were also at risk to the greed of the king’s favorite, so the Marcher Lords eventually rebelled, led by the Earl of Lancaster (the king’s cousin and the second most powerful man in England). Roger De Mortimer’s part in the rebellion ended in January 1322 at Shrewsbury where he was forced to surrender to the English army. He was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. A few days later, he managed to escape the tower by “drugging a guard”. Considering De Mortimer was captured on the battlefield, how he came into the possession of a substance he could feed to a guard from inside his locked cell remains open to speculation. In any case, he escaped and fled to France, pursued by warrants for his capture dead or alive.

Roger De Mortimer was already well established in France when Queen Isabella arrived to negotiate peace with her brother. It’s somewhat ironic that she arrived at the very French court where Roger, the man who had just tried to overthrow her husband, was living in exile. In a turn of events worthy of a poorly written soap opera, the charismatic Englishman soon caught the eye of young Isabella. Away from her husband and starved for male affection, Isabella became smitten with De Mortimer and they began an open affair that was considered scandalous even by French standards. As the affair progressed, the two began planning their eventual return to England. Since Edward II was preventing both from returning (Isabella because she couldn’t stand him and De Mortimer because he would be killed on site) they decided their return would require their own army. It took them two years to raise the necessary support, but in September 1326 they crossed the English Channel and with the help of Henry, the Earl of Lancaster, deposed King Edward II of England. Edward retreated into Wales, but was eventually captured and put to death.

Upon their return to London, De Mortimer and Isabella had the 14 year old Edward III (Isabella’s son) crowned king. Due to the boy’s youth, De Mortimer generously offered to take personal control of the government, and began acting as the de-facto king. It’s said that over the next four years he consolidated his power and increased his wealth, landholdings and titles. He took over the lordships of Denbigh, Oswestry and Clun, and was even granted the Marcher Lordship of Montgomery by Isabella. This angered many of England’s powerful families, even some of Roger’s former allies. After 4 years of De Mortimer’s rule, the Lords convinced Edward III, now 18, that it was time to take back control of his kingdom. In October 1330, Edward III exercised his power and had De Mortimer arrested for treason and assuming kingly powers. De Mortimer was once again placed in the tower of London, but this time he apparently forgot to bring his knockout drops. He was condemned without trial and ignominiously hanged on November 29th 1330. Isabella was put under house arrest by her son, but was never charged with a crime.

It is accepted by most scholars that at the time of Roger De Mortimer’s execution, Isabella was pregnant with his child. The official record states that she lost the baby in childbirth, but others are not so sure. There are reports that the baby was smuggled out of the castle by Isabella’s friend and supporter Adam Orleton, the Bishop of Worcester, and given to a sympathetic family. It would make sense, since a male child of this union would have almost certainly been seen as a threat to the throne and would not have been allowed to live. In case you haven’t guessed, that baby is said to have been William Alfred Knight, my ancestor.

Was William Knight really the child of Roger De Mortimer and Queen Isabella of England? We may never know. There are scant few records from the time to prove or disprove it. But the vast majority of the 72,103 people who list themselves as descendents of William Knight certainly think so. And as a descendant myself, I’m happy to include the Queen of England and one of England’s most notorious traitors in my family tree. Although I do feel an obligation to point out that most sources record William Knight’s birth year as somewhere between 1320 and 1325, 5 to 10 years before Isabella was pregnant with De Mortimer’s child in 1330. But hey, why let that ruin a great story.

]]>https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/william-alfred-knight-1320-1350/feed/0tedp10Drugstore Cowboyhttps://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/drugstore-cowboy/
https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/drugstore-cowboy/#respondTue, 22 Jun 2010 03:56:35 +0000http://pryors.wordpress.com/?p=38]]>We had some unusual police action here in sleepy little Redmond the other day. A man actually robbed a local drug store at gun point. (We’re talking 8 blocks from my house). We normally have a crime rate equivalent to Mayberry USA, so this was somewhat surprising and disconcerting to local residents. There were two notable facts related to this crime worth passing along: 1) The guy with the gun was famed criminal James Fogle. In case the name doesn’t ring a bell, they made a movie about him back in 1989 called “Drugstore Cowboy” starring Matt Dillon. 2) Believe it or not, the Redmond police caught the guy. I don’t mean to reflect negatively on the Redmond police, but I can’t help imagining the reaction of this hardened, life-long criminal when a bug-eyed Barney P. Fife, gun drawn, knees shaking, burst into the drugstore.

Some additional Redmond crime trivia: What other infamous criminal (who also had a movie made about him) once lived in our beloved town? Henry Hill, the gangster turned snitch who took down the Gambino crime family. The Martin Scorsese film GoodFellas was made about him, starring Ray Liota as Henry. The FBI relocated him here while in the witness protection program. He later became the first person kicked out of the witness protection program for numerous crimes throughout the greater Seattle area.

]]>https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/drugstore-cowboy/feed/0tedp10DrugstoreCowboyI am not a terrorist. I promise.https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/i-am-not-a-terrorist-i-promise/
https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/i-am-not-a-terrorist-i-promise/#respondSat, 19 Jun 2010 01:37:53 +0000http://pryors.wordpress.com/?p=10]]>A few days ago, I decided it might be fun to start a blog. I researched various blogging options and ended up selecting WordPress. One of the first steps in creating a WordPress blog is to select an easy to remember URL . Since my last name is Pryor, it seemed fitting to use Pryor.Wordpress.com. Unfortunately, WordPress informed me the name was already taken. Out of curiosity, I took a peek at this other Pryor’s blog, thinking the author may be a relative. Well, I kinda missed the mark on that one. Pryor.wordpress.com was written entirely in Arabic. Intrigued, I went to Google’s translation app and translated the blog to English.

The blog contains an odd tome that I can’t seem to get my head around. This is partly due to the poor quality of the translation and partly because of my unfamiliarity with the culture. To my western sensibilities, the story is a mixture of poetry, a possible cry for peace, quite a bit of violent imagery and, quite possibly, some jihadist propaganda. Go ahead and judge it for yourself. Here’s a link to the google translation:

I’m still not sure how the name Pryor fits in to this strange blog, but I’ve gone with Pryors.Wordpress.com.

]]>https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/i-am-not-a-terrorist-i-promise/feed/0tedp10Who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks?https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/hello-world/
https://pryors.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/hello-world/#commentsWed, 09 Jun 2010 19:59:13 +0000http://pryors.wordpress.com/?p=1]]>After much debate, the Pryor Clan has opted for an on-line presence. I doubt we’ll post topics worthy of national debate, but hey, why not try.

In reality, the intension of this blog is to keep track of the various goings-on of family, friends and ourselves so when we’re old and have lost significant cognitive function, we’ll have these blog posts to remind us we were once middle aged, slightly overweight and really boring.